Phil Hughes’ position in the batting order

Posted by

Phil Hughes has been talking about how frustrating it has been to have batted at every position from one to six on this Ashes tour, seemingly oblivious to the fact that all six slots have basically meant being an opener.

He also said:

“I feel like I’m very comfortable at the crease at the moment.”

Which may be because he hasn’t had time to feel discomfort. Think of flights or long bus journeys. Sometimes it takes a while.

Hughes does exhibit some level of awareness, however.

“When you lose it is not a good thing.”

So at least that message is finally hitting home.

But standards are still low. He describes David Warner’s 193 against South Africa A as “a big 190”.

Now 197 or 199 – they’re big 190s. Considering the 10 different possibilities, 193 is actually pretty disappointing.

15 comments

  1. Condom sizes, when there is a choice of three, might be labelled “big, jumbo or gargantuan”, to designate small, medium or large in normal parlance.

    In those terms, 193 is a big 190, possibly even verging on jumbo.

    Dean Elgar’s 268 in the same match is a gargantuan 260. and Thami Tsolekile’s 159 is an even more gargantuan 150.

    I like adjective inflation and agree 120% with the use of these terms.

  2. Phil Hughes bats like a man who has just spotted his wife and daughter leaving the ground in the company of a notorious roué.

  3. Phil Hughes to 6, Steve Smith to 4, Clarke 5. Do whatever the hell you like with first drop.
    This will be my last comment regarding selections for the series unless it involves matters of style.
    Let’s face it, if you asked the selectors to select along the lines of a fat guy, the keen young player, a rebel, the jaded professional etc etc you would probably still have a more balanced offering than the current squad.

  4. I can’t take him seriously since I learned his nickname at Worcestershire (and perhaps generally) is Pippa Huggis.

    1. Hmmm.

      Re the Telegraph piece, it seems to me that the author defines banter subjectively as material that he finds idiotic and humourless, which makes his argument rather circular. As it happens, I found his main example idiotic and humourless too, but I wouldn’t ever describe a label in a pair of trousers as banter. As much as anything else, I think that banter requires dialogue.

      Re Warner, perhaps there was dialogue. But when skippers and umpires need to separate players from their altercation, I’m not even faintly convinced that dialogue could be described as banter either.

      Bant…

      …I mean rant…

      …over

    2. Tom Chivers is an agent provocateur. His purpose in the Telegraph is to upset the readers with his wet leftist opinions. He’s generally quite amusing in that context. Makes the Telegraph comments funnier than usual.

    1. It said nine for about 30 seconds after we first published this and it’s said 10 ever since. How did you do that? Are you Marty McFly?

    1. David Warner’s back. As in, altercating, bantering and generally getting into trouble.

      But perhaps Warner also has ankylosing spondylitis, which might explain his grumpy, even pugnatious moods.

Comments are closed.